People v. Castro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Castro

25 A.D.2d 503, 268 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5044

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 3, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 503 (People v. Castro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Castro, 25 A.D.2d 503, 268 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction sentencing the defendant to the New York City Penitentiary, unanimously affirmed. In sentencing this defendant the court stated: “He’s a seriously disturbed individual with an apparent character disorder and there’s no possibility of any satisfactory community adjustment. I have no alternative except to commit him to the New York City Penitentiary.” We do not believe that this statement necessarily indicates that the defendant is not a proper subject for rehabilitation. Rather, it [504]*504could mean that without such treatment there would be “no possibility of any satisfactory community adjustment.” In the circumstances the judgment must be affirmed.

Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment of conviction sentencing the defendant to the New York City Penitentiary, unanimously affirmed. In sentencing this defendant the court stated: “He’s a seriously disturbed individual with an apparent character disorder and there’s no possibility of any satisfactory community adjustment. I have no alternative except to commit him to the New York City Penitentiary.” We do not believe that this statement necessarily indicates that the defendant is not a proper subject for rehabilitation. Rather, it [504]*504could mean that without such treatment there would be “no possibility of any satisfactory community adjustment.” In the circumstances the judgment must be affirmed.

Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 503, 268 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-castro-nyappdiv-1966.